« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 1 NFP) | Main | Ind. Decisions - "DeBoy's killer wins appeal" is the headline »

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Ind. Decisions - "Judge upholds Plainfield sex offender ban"

Bruce C. Smith reports in the Indianapolis Star:

PLAINFIELD -- In the latest court ruling in a long-running lawsuit, a Marion County man listed on the state's sex offender registry is still banned from Plainfield's town parks.

In a five-page opinion, Hendricks County Superior Court Judge Robert W. Freese has found the Plainfield ordinance banning registered sex offenders from the parks to be constitutional.

That means the man known in the legal dispute as John Doe is still prohibited from the town's parks where he sued to be allowed to take his son for recreation.

The man's real name has been sealed by an earlier court order because he feared public identification would open him and his family to more harassment and threats to his safety. * * *

The Plainfield Town Council passed a series of rules and regulations for the parks in 2002, just as the town began expanding its recreational facilities with new hiking and biking trails, new neighborhood parks and the $25 million Recreation Center and Splash Island water park.

Fines of $100 for the first offense and $200 for additional offenses could be levied on anyone on the state's sex offender registry who is found in a town park.

John Doe, whose real name and criminal history are visible on-line on the sex offender registry of the [ILB - sic.], was convicted of child exploitation and possession of child pornography. * * *

The ICLU filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the town ordinance in 2005. At that time, town council President Robin Brandgard said the ordinance was intended "to protect citizens of Plainfield, particularly the children."

Town officials sought to make Doe's name public. But in February 2007, he won an Indiana Court of Appeals ruling to stay anonymous as he continued to challenge the Plainfield ordinance banning him from the parks.

The ICLU argued in Hendricks Superior Court that banning the man, who has completed his punishment including probation, effectively piles on more punishment. And he was suing for the right to use the town parks and claimed the ordinance was unconstitutional.

However, Freese said in a ruling released on Friday that local ordinances are presumed to be constitutional unless specifically shown otherwise. He also cited earlier legal rulings that Indiana's legal history is to protect the welfare of children. He found that "at least some sexual predators prey upon those to whom they have access. And some offenders have a high incidence of re-offending."

The ordinance is a legitimate government interest to protect children by keeping sex offenders away from recreation areas where children are present, the judge wrote. And he wrote that the ordinance does not violate any constitutional right without justification.

For background, see this ILB entry from Dec. 14, 2005, headed "Man challenges Plainfield ordinance banning anyone listed on the Indiana Sex Offender Registry from entering all parks and recreational areas operated by the town." and this one from Nov. 27, 2006, headed "Sex offender sues Plainfield for anonymity." See also this entry from Feb. 13, 2007, headed "Sealed documents in otherwise "unsealed" cases," which links to the COA Feb. 6, 2007 decision in John Doe v. Town of Plainfield, Indiana.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 18, 2008 09:13 AM
Posted to Ind. Trial Ct. Decisions